About your Search

20121121
20121129
Search Results 0 to 20 of about 21 (some duplicates have been removed)
. and that -- you notice the united nations does not have, does not give the nations that right, particularly because the lessons from the league of nations. and they, he -- the congress said they would gladly redesign the league. in fact, the european nations all said just ask us, we'll remove that. rerefuseed -- he refused. he simply, and the republicans knew that he was that rigid in his nature, and they just selected that, and they just played it to their success. very definitely. yes. there's a question back there. >> it's entirely possible that barack obama may win the electoral vote and may either lose the popular vote or the popular vote may be very close. what effect is that likely to have on his performance in the second term? >> the implication is the weakness that he has. and it's likely that at best if he wins, he will have a small majority in either the electoral college or the popular vote. so that would add to the congressional, the republican position that they don't have to cooperate with the man who doesn't have a mandate. and the mandate is the thing that would, would be o
to know to which degree to think as the united nation but for the 21st century to political power in the hands of the green lobby. >> well, the u.n. has been very encouraging of the green lobby and the screen job issue is not an issue here in the united state. it is an issue also in europe being encouraged by the u.n., encouraged by the meeting over the summer. but europe is also finding green job aren't all they thought they would be. spain has stopped subsidies for solar power under that doesn't work in sunny spain it's not going to work anywhere. germany has also stopped at subsidies which is more understandable because there's a lot of clubs in germany, even though the economy isn't cloudy at all. the u.n. has had a strong influence on this. >> yes, sir. >> chuck bradford. you are probably not old enough to remember, the jimmy carter gave lots of money, billions of dollars to alternate energy projects. >> i do remember. >> too many of those plants still exist is the question? i don't think they lasted more than a couple years. secondly, are you familiar with another jimmy cart
in fdr's proposed second bill of rights, and finally they were adopted in the united nations universal declaration of human rights after world war ii. thanks in part to eleanor roosevelt who helped draft the un's declaration after her husband's death. today, more than 70 countries recognize a right to health or health care in their constitutions. virtually every industrialized nation has taken a step to influence these rights by establishing some type of universal health coverage for their citizens. with one major exception. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> tell us what you think about our programming this weekend. you can tweet us at booktv, comment on her facebook wall or send us an e-mail. booktv, nonfiction books every weekend on c-span2.
as their constitutional rights as american citizens, putting slave property into territory owned by the united nations. in 1857, the infamous dred scott decision united states supreme court affirmed the southern constitution. republicans in contrast never. no matter the supreme court. republicans would allow no more slaves in any territory. abraham lincoln was elected in november of 1860. a month later the united states congress came into session. members of congress put forth theories compromise from a critical portion of on some bits out with division of territory and most often was a proposal to extend some kind of dividing line westby on louisiana purchase other way to the border of california. now, after this rather lengthy preface, i am going to get to my main topic, why lincoln rejected albeit compromise within the territory. but there must be one thing more. i'm going to talk about three different men tonight. one of them all if you know, abraham lincoln and who he was and what he did. the other two are not so well known. for probably a number if you are probably familiar with henry clay, the
of their national perspectives we should consider. i think about allies as well with united states have been foreign allies and through steadying interaction and what were the elements to agree and disagree will help us to understand iraq war afghanistan -- of guinness dan. it is works like this that would help. >>host: "in buddha's company" thai soldiers in the vietnam war." . . day professor at the naval academy. thank you for your time. >>host: you may recognize him from a former book and he is back with a new book on the potomac river. where does it start and end? >> it starts in fairfax near west virginia a tiny little circle and it then that point* look out when the river is 12 miles wide and in between there is history. it is where our nation in europe. it also has the nation's capital. >>host: people think about the white house and the potomac river. why is that? >> they think of washington d.c. are the national monument why do they think of of potomac river? >> for those in the area is seen as an obstacl
and expansion of the territory of the nation went hand-in-hand. in fact, although the united states won no change in the british policy as a result of the war, the country did gain undisputed control of western land that had once been claimed by indians. these were lands that were previously settled by whites and cultivated insubstantial parts by men and women. now what this means is that all members of the nation's populace, no matter their civic status, no matter whether they could vote for against the president, could assist in the process of settling and thereby securing the nation's land. with no casual choice of words then when madison did not call on all the nations as citizens to support their country. instead, he called far more broadly to quote all the good people of the united states, as they love their country to exert themselves. those loving people included the nation's entire population, male or female, slaves are free, excluding only the indian inhabitants of the continent who continued to struggle for their own sovereignty. now what i would like to do in a time that we
, the republicans determination, too well the north into the unit that could win a national election without any southern support, republicans repeatedly condemned the south as aggressive, undemocratic, even un-american. with this party on the threshold of the presidency, southern sectional radicals known as fire eaters, those people who preached the gospel of this union, they took to the public platform and to the newspaper columns to proclaim that the crisis of the south was at hand. the south had to act immediately to protect itself from the hatred of evil republicans, cries of secession filled the southern air. now, this was not the first time sectional crisis had gripped the country, however. there have been several sharp sectional disputes prior to 1860. each of these, each of the major ones had been settled by a compromise. here i will point specifically to the four critical ones. first, the constitutional convention of 1787 in philadelphia. the missouri crisis of 1820, had to do with the admission of missouri as a slave state, the future slavery in the louisiana purchase which, of course
that would allow it to project force to the region without having to depend upon the host nation support. the second step that the united states reluctantly took towards assuming some of those same british commitments, came later on in the decade with the fall of the shah, and the iranian revolution in 1978 and '79. the u.s. had to rely on saudi arabia and iran in the aftermath of british withdrawal because of america's involvement in vietnam, and with the primary pillar, iran, one of the two twin pillars now gone, the united states had to figure out a way to project military power, since its surrogates would no longer shepherd after western interests in the region. we see here with the carter administration and the late -- late in the carter administration, the enunsation of what would become known as the carter doctrine. in his state of the union suppose in 1980, president carter said in no uncertain terms that an attack on western interests in the persian gulf represents an attack on u.s. vital national interests, and the u.s. will be prepared to use military force in defense of those
. is the author of more than a dozen books, including first a pitcher's history of the united states, which he co-authored. other topics on which is written include national defense, history and historiography in the u.s. economy. a television series based on the united states is currently in development as well. we're pleased to welcome to hear about his newest book, a pitcher's history of the modern world, which in this case is going to be from 1898, two just after the second world war. please join me in welcoming larry schweikart. [applause] >> well, thanks so much to heritage foundation for inviting me here. it's really an honor and one that i wish my father was alive to see. heritage is one of those great bastian said liberty in a swelling sea of collect this and. you probably didn't know that you are getting somebody here who was the previous rock drummer. this later became significant learning -- as a learning experience when i began working on this film. but all along, my experience and about and were pretty informative. sma students i know about communism because i was in a rock band. we
and freddie still are responsible for most new home mortgages in the united states, so we have nationalized a huge part of our mortgage industry. how did we get to this point? it was not on purpose. it was really more of an accident and it was a bipartisan accident. let's go back to the 19 30s. about a quarter of the workforce was unemployed. around half of all mortgage debt was in default. housing starts were down about 90%. so when roosevelt became president in 1933 the top priority was to get people back to work. it sounds kind of familiar. building houses would be a great way to do that, but to build houses you need bank loans and banks were not really in the mood to gamble on real estate. so the government would try to make the banks feel more secure. the housing act of 1934 created the federal housing administration, the fha. it provides insurance to banks so that they know they will get their money back. that even with the fha, tanks still might feel nervous. they might want somebody to buy those mortgages from them so in that same housing act of 1934, congress made provisions for a
there was this notion that france and england would be a united union. they weren't calling it a country, but a national union. it would have two parliaments but one war cabinet, and every citizen of france would be a citizen of britain. churchill was a little skeptical at first, but then he went to the cabinet, and he said we can't be accused here of not having imagination, so let's, let's propose this. and it actually was, it was presented to the french cabinet but not all that seriously. by the time it came up, it was really too late. so france conducted a armistice with the germans and came to what we know as the agreement that sets up the government in the southern part of the country. the germans occupied the northern part, the northern two-thirds of the country along with all of the atlantic coast. and -- >> host: and, essentially, left in place the lower third, correct? >> guest: they wanted a government to govern that part of the country and also the colonies in north africa and southeast asia. they didn't want to be distracted by that. so part of the agreement was you set up this government --
nation. in 1857, there was an infamous decision and the united states supreme court confirmed the constitutional review. republicans, in contrast, never. the republicans would allow no more slaves in any territory. abraham lincoln was elected in november of 1860. a month later, the united states congress came into session. members of congress put forth various compromise proposals. a critical portion of all dealt with the divisions of territories. most often there was a proposal tuesday extended west beyond the louisiana purchase all the way to the border of california. now, after this preface, i'm going to get to my main point. when lincoln rejected all compromise with regard to territories. but there must be something more. i'm going to talk about three different men tonight. one of them, abraham lincoln, you know what he was and what he did. one of two americans, so well-known. the great kentucky statesman, henry clay, and william henry seward of new york state and prior to lincoln's nomination for the presidency was by far the most notable and well-known republican in the
believed -- lincoln fully believed if there were two nations in the middle of the north american continent, this war would not be the last. they said the reason the united states had not been written by the wars that affected europe for centuries was there was a single country. once there are two countries in north america, they will go at it again so this war would not be the last and in the long run even 600,000 lives, this might be a bargaining human suffering. >> questions from the audience? we will start over here. [inaudible] >> is there a microphone he could use? i am sorry. >> is the microphone working? good deal. we are all talking, we were wondering when you were going to get to the part about what we all believe in the southern part of the united states, how he was a drunk and a corrupt politician. you are contradicting much of that. you came to different conclusions, did you? >> i did the. i will give you grant's reputation. for years he was a drunk and a butcher and his administration was one of the most corrupt in american history. historians rating presidents until the begin
in the sense that it gives middle easterners of whatever background and awareness that the united states has a humanitarian presence in the middle east. it has not always been about the cultivation of military forces for national security. americans have been there for 150 years giving to the nation in practical and beneficial ways for the people, not just for us. but that is why i wrote the book. i wanted them to know that not one and i wanted the american people to know that story. >> who was malcolm kerr current? >> he was a professor at ucla who left the year before i arrived work on my phd. he had grown up in beirut. though he had made a very distinguished career for himself as a scholar of the middle east, he went home in the early
purposes except protect purposes, in switzerland interestingly there is a huge national revolt against the superrich and don't pay a high tax rate. there are similar tensions in but terror is certainly a more extreme dynamic in the united states. >> which u.s. government policies in your view perpetuate the transfer of wealth between the middle class and the top 1%, and could you rank them in importance including for example -- >> that would take all night. >> please address and include the tax equity, inequities between herndon come, and capital gains, the federal reserve policy of low interest rates, the emphasis on spending rather than saving, the reward given to borrowers rather than savers. >> from that famous line in when harry met sally, i will have what she had and the ones i would single out, because it is so egregious to carry interest treatment. i find that amazing and i find amazing that four years of a democratic president still hasn't managed to roll that back. how can that be? and .2 i find amazing i have yet to talk to a private equity person now that how liberal and so
and awareness that the united states has a humanitarian presence in the middle east. it has not always been about access to will, close relationship with israel or deployment of military purpose -- forces for purposes of national security. americans have been there for 150 years getting to the region, and much more practical and beneficial way for the people of the region and not just for us. that is why i wrote the book. i wanted them to know and the american people to know that story. >> who is malcolm karen and what happened to him? >> he was a professor of political science at ucla who the before i arrived for my ph.d. had grown up in beirut, his parents had been on the faculty and though he had made a very distinguished career for himself in the united states as a scholar he went home in the early 80s to lead the school during a period of particularly difficult times when they route had fractured due to the civil war and the israeli incursion of 1962. the city was a mess, the school was under assault, there was a lot of danger but he believed going back and running the school and provi
in the least dense half of america's counties. this is a common phenomenon in the united states and throughout the world. the three largest metropolitan areas in this country produce 18% of our nation's gdp, almost a fifth, while including only 13 percent of america's population. the top line shows something that may be something more surprising. it's the relationship between population growth between the years 2000 and 2010, and initial population density. as you can see, until you get to the very top tenth, population growth goes up steadily with density. at the start of the 19th century, we were leaving our enclaves on the eastern seaboard to spread out and take advantage of the american wealth. at the start of the 21st century we're clustering in, we're clamoring to be close to one another. now, we see in boston the resurgence of a great city. we see in new york, in san francisco, in seattle, in chicago, all of these places, and london and paris, we see the triumph of the developed world cities. but the success of the city in the developed world is nothing relative to what's happening in t
legislated to the united states senate and then the presidency who is beginning to grapple in a much more direct way than most of us ever have to with the implications of being responsible. for our national security, for making these decisions. it's not been remarked on enough, but it's fairly extraordinary that when he was, i think, very prematurely awarded the nobel peace prize being elected president, he shows up at oslow before the nobel peace committee and delivers what i think is probably the only pro-war speech ever given in acceptance of the nobel peace prize. he argues for the necessity of war, but argues for the necessity of american power and for his responsibility to use american power in the world. i think that was a fairly remarkable speech. that coupled with the fact that there is the remote targeting of suspected terrorists says to me that people's expectations about him as a sort of passist leaning president was misguided. he's clearly not that, and nothing shows that more than his decision to go after bin laden. now, when i talk about main characters in the story, forgiv
the canadian nation, that this might not have been a victory for either the unite or great britain, but -- the united states or great britain, but canada regards it as a victory for them. they turned back american invasion efforts, and after the 1812 war from then til now, there's never been a cross-border conflict. >> i can confirm that. i'm an american who spent a good part of my youth in canada, went to school there. and, yes, it's very much a source of canadian pride that the americans were beaten. [laughter] >> thank you for that. yes. >> i went to school in australia, and we had detailed history of the revolution, boston tea party and so on. and then of the american civil war. we knew almost everything about that. we had the battle of antitee tunnel and gettysburg and so on. into when i came here in 1957, i found i really knew a lot more about the revolution and the civil war than colleagues here, students and academics. but we never heard a word about the war of 1812. it was not mentioned, and it was not in our history. any idea why that should be? >> the speaker noted that
Search Results 0 to 20 of about 21 (some duplicates have been removed)